While a lot of Americans, including the New York Times, seem enthusiastic about the idea that the U.S. is losing the war against Iran, Al-Jazeera publishes a perspective from a professor in Doha… “The US-Israeli strategy against Iran is working. Here is why”:
“When you look at what has actually happened to Iran’s principal instruments of power – its ballistic missile arsenal, its nuclear infrastructure, its air defences, its navy and its proxy command architecture – the picture is not one of US failure. It is one of systematic, phased degradation of a threat that previous administrations allowed to grow for four decades. … An arsenal built over decades, dismantled in days … The campaign has moved through two distinct phases. The first suppressed Iran’s air defences, decapitated its command and control, and degraded its missile and drone launch infrastructure. … The second phase, now under way, targets Iran’s defence industrial base: missile production facilities, dual-use research centres and the underground complexes where remaining stockpiles are stored. … Iran now faces a strategic dilemma that tightens every day. If it fires its remaining missiles, it exposes launchers that are promptly destroyed. … Much of the criticism of the US-Israeli campaign focuses on its costs while treating the status quo ante as if it were cost-free. It was not. … Closing the strait was always Iran’s most visible retaliatory card, and always a wasting asset. About 90 percent of Iran’s own oil exports pass through Kharg Island and then the strait. … The question is not whether the strait reopens but when and whether Iran retains any naval capacity to contest it. … the endgame is visible in the operational phasing, even if the rhetoric obscures it. The objective is the permanent degradation of Iran’s ability to project power beyond its borders through missiles, nuclear latency and proxy networks. … the critics are making a different error: They are treating the costs of action as if the costs of inaction were zero. They were not. They were measured in the slow accretion of a threat that, left unchecked, would have produced exactly the crisis everyone claims to fear: a nuclear-armed Iran capable of closing the Strait of Hormuz at will, surrounded by proxy forces that could hold the entire region hostage indefinitely.”
I’m not sure if Muhanad Seloom is correct, but the fact that A-10 Warthogs are now operating in Iran suggests that he is. Speaking of the Hog, here’s a photo from the 2024 Stuart, Florida air show:
Prof. Seloom seems to assume that the Islamic Republic stays in power and that the U.S. stops its regular bombing runs, thus giving Iran the opportunity to rebuild its military:
No one is proposing to occupy Tehran. The question is what happens when the bombing stops, and here the critics raise a legitimate concern, which Murphy articulated concisely after a classified briefing: What prevents Iran from restarting production?
Maybe the answer is that there are some adversaries who are indifferent to being bombed and, therefore, you have to keep bombing them every few days indefinitely, e.g., use satellites and drones to see if they’ve managed to rebuild some military capability and, if so, take it out immediately. Wait for a new leader to show up in public and drop a missile on his head. Certainly you can’t let the enemy rebuild its air defenses.
If the administration was straightforward with the current status, I think it would be this:
– We killed some leadership, but it was replaced by leaders that are basically the same
– We destroyed most of their missiles, planes, ships, etc, but didn’t destroy any more of their (early) nuclear program
– To destroy their nuclear program, we would need to put soldiers on the ground, go through tunnels, etc, but we’re not willing to do that.
– To replace their leadership, we would need to put soldiers on the ground, which again we’re not willing to do.
– If they rebuild any of their conventional weapons, we’re in a good place to attack again later
– But if we want to stop their nuclear program or replace the regime later, we’ll need to do later what we’re not willing to do today.
Before the attack, Iran thought that if they could absorb massive damage and stay standing, they would be the ultimate winner because the US would quickly lose interest and leave.
That’s looking like a decent prediction of the situation.
* By the way, I’m fine with the “mowing the grass” strategy. I’m most bothered by using expensive (and hard to replace, it seems) weapons in an optional war.
We’re using $4M patriots to shoot down $20k drones and burning through a stockpile of weapons that is difficult to replace.
The Patriots first in the first 3 days around Iran were more than Ukraine fired since the start of their war with Russia.
The tomahawk missiles fired will take years to replace.
Can you imagine being China or Russia, eyeing Taiwan and Ukraine, watching Trump burn through weapons on Iran that may leave us unable to mount a sustained defense anywhere else for years?
It’s a tremendous gift.
Are we sure Trump doesn’t work for Russia? Because this, combined with removing the sanctions on Russian oil, would make Trump Russia’s employee of the year.
Why do we need “boots on the ground” to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons? If we disable their oil industry (the source of the government’s money) and their electric power generation how are they going to run nuclear weapons labs and factories?
Why would it take years to replace weapons? From February 2026, https://www.rtx.com/news/news-center/2026/02/04/rtxs-raytheon-partners-with-department-of-war-on-five-landmark-agreements-to-exp describes a deal to make 1,000 Tomahawks per year. Only about 4,000 have been made since 1983 so that’s a significant ramp-up.
From December 2025, https://www.csis.org/analysis/depleting-missile-defense-interceptor-inventory describes “The U.S. Army’s decision to increase its objectives for Patriot PAC-3 MSE interceptor procurement from 3,376 to 13,773 total missiles”
Regardless of how many interceptors we have, bombing the missile factories in Iran seems like a great way to reduce the number of interceptors required. If Iranians can’t make missiles anymore who is going to be producing mass quantities of missiles and shooting them at us? The Chinese are historically at least mostly peaceful. The Russians are busy in Ukraine.
David, your comments are all so astute! Just to ease your rightful concerns and to look on the bright side, there is a silver lining to the absolute disaster and utter destruction that Trump the fool has welcomed on America, as you have so expertly described (never mind Phil’s low-IQ rebuttals). By ensuring the utter destruction and capitulation of America to Russia and China that you smartly articulate, Trump has condemned America to the outcome it truly deserves, namely a society that despises and rejects everything about the evils of Western Civilization. I can’t think of a more satisfying outcome, can you? Allahu Akbar!
@Baroke Obummer
Why should Islam trust you, didn’t you develop this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_Matrix
I think the real problem, as Phil has pointed out so many times, is hypocrisy.
You’re a fool…..all Iran needs is few thousand 7000 dollar drones, and your oil infrastructure will be toast…..don’t forget oil burns!
So if you think it’s a one way street you’re sadly mistaken. Also, Iran is 92 million people strong, it’s not sheikdom. It will rebuild and it will pay back its debt to the Gulfies.
Anon: I know that I’m a fool, but the above analysis is from Professor Muhanad Seloom, not from me!
That said, I don’t know how Iran would be able to get its drones to the U.S. (you mentioned “your oil infrastructure”). Iran had a drone carrier ship, but my understanding is that it was blown up and sunk. As far as I know, Iranian drones don’t have the range to make it across the Atlantic Ocean. Could Iran attack its Arab neighbors? I guess so, but presumably the Iranian military was at its strongest 2.5 weeks ago and still didn’t accomplish much. Iran’s large population might be more of a liability than an asset. If the U.S. gets serious enough about winning to disable Iran’s oil production and electricity grid then Iranians will have to spend almost all of their time and energy on food production.
Anon, you are spot on! Phil is an utter fool. Your comment that Iran is “92 million strong” is so perceptive because events of the last few months have proven that every single one of them supports the Peaceful Islamic regime (don’t believe the polls you may read because they are CIA misinformation). If only the monster Trump was a high IQ Harvard graduate like me (where I studied Black Studies Plagiarism with the renowned Claudine Gay) and had taken the approach I invented, in large part sending the regime billions of dollars as a gesture of our love for Peaceful Islam. Allahu Akbar!
Thank you, Barack, and I hope that you’ll join me in working with Ali Larijani to make sure that the evil Trump regime is punished for its attack on the peaceful Islamic Republic. https://x.com/alilarijani_ir/status/2032128759042646170?s=20
Philip,
Re: nuclear weapons:
– Before the invasion, Trump told us that Iran was just days away having a nuclear weapon. And that a decent amount of nuclear material was still out there.
– I haven’t heard Trump say anything about destroying their nuclear weapons again. Did I miss it? All the talk I hear is about conventional weapons being destroyed.
– In briefings to the Senate Intelligence committee, Democrats are being told that the goal of getting rid of those weapons is no longer in the plan, likely because they are deeply buried, and not reachable by aircraft.
This tells us they want to destroy the tanks, boats, planes, etc., and hope for a solution on the nuclear weapons later.
Is there any other explanation?
Re: China being peaceful. They’ll be peaceful until they’re not. They’re willing to take Taiwan by force, right?
Re: Russia staying busy. Ukraine is desperate for Patriots because they use them to blunt Russian attacks
https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-to-receive-35-patriot-interceptors-in-coming-weeks-media-reports/
We shouldn’t be able to complain if the Chinese take Taiwan because we’re officially on record as saying we don’t support Taiwanese independence. From 2023: https://nypost.com/2023/06/19/blinken-ruffles-feathers-by-stating-us-does-not-support-taiwan-independence-after-meeting-chinas-xi/
I don’t see what’s logically inconsistent in what you say that Trump has said. Iran has some enriched uranium. To turn that into working atomic bombs will require some work. If all of their military vehicles, oil production, and electric power generating plants are disabled then how do they build bombs using what they have? They might not even be able to move on the surface of their country in order to get to their underground nuclear facilities. A drone or an A-10 can just circle and wait for someone to approach by car or truck.
Regarding Ukraine, I don’t have an answer. It seems like a pointless stalemate. I don’t think Patriots will make any difference to that conflict.
It’s a strange world we live in when Al-Jazeera has more interesting and more balanced articles than our own media.
> our own media
Our? That’s the great thing about modern times. Journalists of yore asked, “Who, what, when, where, and why?” then wrote a story. Now they ask, “Which radical pole are my readers on? What conspiracy do they believe?” and the story writes itself (now, literally, with AI).
@phil who cares what Al-Jazeera and NYT says. As a supporter of this war, Trump and his policies you/we only care what FOX news says. What is FOX news saying?
Boots on the ground in Iran would be an epic mistake. Which is why Trump will do it sooner or later.
From a purely military perspective, Iran can keep the strait closed as long as they want. If the Houtis, not even a proper government, despite being heavily bombed (another useless action by Trump) could close the Red Sea for almost two years, Iran can close the straight for decades. It is a war of attrition. Iran has optimised the production of cheap drones. Forget about missiles. Doesn’t matter how many missile launch sites they destroy, they’ll just launch Shaheds from the back of a truck. Even if you destroy all Shahed factories (a big if), a couple of guys in a small boat and an RPG will stop any tanker. A small chance of that and insurance costs will go through the roof, which will still lead to high oil prices. Not to mention all the anti-ship missiles that Iran has also developed over decades, and which they haven’t used much yet.
Why doesn’t President Bone Spurs send the largest navy in the world to secure the strait, and instead tries to bully his former allies to do it for him? Because it’s really dangerous and would lead to many casualties.
Politically, Iran has been preparing for this war for decades. Doesn’t matter how many leaders you kill, there are so many fanatics and levels of redundancy that they’ll always be replaced by someone similar. Only Trump was stupid enough to fall for it. The only thing that he has achieved (other than depleting his own ammo) was to rally even the anti-government Iranians against the US. Iran has an educated population, relatively sophisticated indigenous technology, and geographically it is more challenging than Afghanistan. Ground attacks in Iran would make fighting the Taliban like a walk in the park. While the government is widely hated, and the population mostly not religious fanatics, the Persian civilization has spanned millennia and people strongly identify with it. They would not take it lightly to be invaded by a Western country. They will fight for every stone and inch of land, much harder than Trump and his government of dunces can imagine.
> Iran can close the straight for decades.
But as we learned several days ago from Mr. Hamm, America is a net petroleum exporter, and will be forever, so we don’t care. Let other countries keep it open. Iran blocking the straight is a good thing, less money flowing into the Middle East means less of their radical influence on our politics.
/ignore
@Neo Hippy. Absolutely agree that less oil from the middle east means less of the radical Muslim influence on the world. However, there are several reasons why you should care about having the strait open.
First, in the US oil is a commodity and prices are set globally. Blocking middle eastern oil will increase US oil prices in the same way as it does for other countries. Why should US producers sell domestically when international customers will pay much more? This is why gas prices are increasing in the US as well, and will keep in increasing in the weeks and months to come. If you want to avoid that, then you need to impose export controls, and will end up with a country that is much closer to Russia or Iran as a consequence.
Second, the cheap items (and also not so cheap) that are the mainstay of our society and built in Asia, will suffer from more expensive oil. A lot of industrial production in Asia and elsewhere depends either directly on oil or energy generated by oil. So increasing the oil price everywhere will lead to higher prices of everything, everywhere.
The only way to fix the dependency on middle eastern oil is to reduce the dependency on oil, overall. Incredibly, China as usual is playing the long game and heavily invested in renewables and electric cars. Oil is now a much smaller part of their economy than it was 10 years ago. (Meanwhile, Trump is punishing the renewable industry in the US and making it more dependent on oil.) As the war in Ukraine has shown, renewable energy is much more resilient in the face of attacks and (except hydro) often lacks concentrated targets that are easier to bomb, unlike coal, oil, or gas.
@Jarle and NH
Cool, let’s write a proposal to the Gates Foundation and Thunberg Foundation to fund a “Great Neocons for Order in the Middle East” (GNOME) think-tank, to nobly study alternate energy and materials. They ought to be able to scrape $200M in change from the couch (and divert it from Africa). I’m sure Big Oil wouldn’t mind us meddling. Together, we are united. /sarcasm (As if I need to tag it, around here.)
Jarle, who wants boots on the ground in Iran? Maybe limited special forces operation to destroy nuclear material supply or take over oil wells concentrated in Arab Khusistan, there will not be much resistance there. Europe not participating because, unlike Canada, SA built up financial sector and manage financing of cross-country pipeline, from Gulf to Red Sea, bypassing Strait of Hormux and the Hooties, and can sell oil to Europe. Shaheed are nocks-off Israeli 25 years old drones that use Chinese-made engines and electronics, US and Israel know how to protect ships from.them. If regime in Iran does nor change or US and Gulf Arabs do not take over Iran’s oil, all US needs to do is to level Iran’s oil infrastructure, and bye-bye Chinese -made components, and Iran threats. Good luck to surviving mullahs buy anything in China with Iranian reals. Check their exchange rate.
Think that after European refusal just to patrol Hormuz with their frigates or corvettes NATO is done. After involving US in pro-islamist regime change wars in Libia and former Yugoslavia and benefitting from American ballistic missile defenses, including from Iranian threats, only minority of Americans will want to do anything with NATO, and many American deep-state militarusts will have a second thought as well.
Iran is a rough place to practice medicine without insurance preauthorization:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15650113/Horrific-gang-rape-torture-ordeal-Iranian-nurses-Medics-subjected-brutal-sex-attacks-revenge-caring-wounded-rioters-one-victim-begging-surgeons-let-die.html
The mane heartbreak was the destruction of the last airworthy F-14’s to accomplish basically nothing. Suspect we’re heading for a speedy withdrawal when the world is minutes from running out of oil, Trump declares victory, the Ayatollah declares victory & Hegseth resigns.
Lion, I’m confused from where the “withdrawal” you reference would be from? Wouldn’t that require us to have already invaded?
Thanks, lion. Since you’re concerned about the world running out of a natural resource maybe you can pick up where Paul R. Ehrlich left off (died a few days ago) with his prescient Population Bomb book! See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon%E2%80%93Ehrlich_wager
I remember in the ’70s and ’80s when “experts” continuedly warned us that the world was only decades away from running out of food and water, and that if nothing was done, WWIII was a sure thing. I also remember The Day After [1], which scared to hell Americans with the idea that we were on the brink of nuclear war, driven by yet another “crazy” president of that times.
I also remember in the ’70s and ’80s not feeling the need to constantly worry about saying the wrong thing, using the pronoun, or being labeled with something like ADHD. I remember walking the streets, even at night, in neighborhoods considered dangerous, without the same fear of being shot or robbed. And I remember that when I got into a fight with other teenagers, a stranger would step in and break it up, rather than stand by and film live broadcast.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_After
@Jarle, I don’t follow your logic.
You said, “From a purely military perspective, Iran can keep the strait closed as long as they want.”
That is not accurate. Iran relies heavily on oil exports moving through the Strait to fund its government, military, and leadership. Prolonged disruption would collapse its own economy. Given its limited economic export and unrest, they cannot sustain a closer of the Strait even if booming stops today.
You also said, “China … heavily invested in renewables and electric cars”
This too is not accurate. China is not investing in renewables, they remains one of the world’s largest consumers of coal and continues to rely on it heavily. But yes, they are producing cheap electric cars, by stealing Western technologies, as they always do, and using their massive workforce to manufacture them at low cost, supported by heavy government subsidies, as they always have.
@David, Since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, every U.S. leader, of both parties, and nearly every Western leader has been saying, “something must be done about Iran.” And now that something has been done, they are standing by and criticizing it.
This move against Iran is Netanyahu’s plan, and he convinced Trump to joining him. Personally, I believe taking down Saddam, in the second Iraq war was a big mistake. Saddam had kept Iran in check, and Khomeini kept Iraq in check, for the rest of the world. By removing Saddam, we effectively created a new ally for Iran. Over time, if Iran and Iraq play their cards right and becomes strategic allies, they would dominate the Arab world and with it, control oil of the world.
George: Don’t forget all of the Followers of Science who said that oil prices needed to be higher to discourage consumption and climate change. Now that oil prices actually are higher (though not as high as they were during the Biden administration), the climate change alarmists are inconsolable.
New York Times today is mourning Ali Larijani, Man of Peace. Less than a month ago, https://www.nytimes.com/2026/02/22/world/middleeast/iran-larijani-khamenei-pezeshkian.html said “He was in charge of crushing, with lethal force, the recent protests demanding the end of Islamic rule.”
Phil, I recommend you start following Will Schryver (ex USA miliatry) on X for well-argued counter-arguments to the viewpoints that you seem to be currently disposed to follow
https://x.com/imetatronink
Thanks. I don’t know enough about war or Iran to know whether to agree with Prof. Seloom or not. I do find it implausible that we’re losing when Iran’s leaders keep getting killed and when all that Iran seems to be able to do is attack civilians sporadically (like the Germans did to London during The Blitz). But I also think we still could lose just by giving up because we don’t have the stomach to do anything that inconveniences Iranian “civilians” (30-50% of whom are big regime supporters?). That would leave the Islamic Republic in charge with oil revenues, electric power, and everything else they need to rebuild quickly.
Being ex-military doesn’t give a person special insight. Jimmy Carter was a Navy officer and he handed Iran to Muslim theocrats, allowed them to take our embassy hostage, etc.
Will Schryver posts….
https://x.com/imetatronink/status/2034006163868762385?s=20 he says “This brief analysis underscores why I have long argued that the US could not win a war of attrition against Iran.”
That seems absurd. The US economy is about 60X larger than the Iranian economy. Admittedly we waste a huge percentage of GDP on Minnesota day cares and our defense procurement isn’t efficient, but we still have way more money and the most important military input is money (can be used to buy weapons from efficient producers worldwide, if nothing else).
In https://x.com/ProfessorPape/status/2033750432573473044?s=20 he says “Iran is more powerful now than before the war — it controls the price of world oil and more likely to fracture the US coalition than US is to grow it. Stunning gains in 17 days”
Having lost control of its airspace and with most of its top leaders killed, I don’t see how Iran is more powerful every day! I’m not sure why we care about “the price of world oil”. Trump could shut off exports from the US and insulate our domestic prices from the world market. We’re the world’s largest oil producer and a net exporter. The Europeans and Asians might suffer with $200/barrel prices, but if our producers can’t export why would the domestic price be different from what it was in February?
I can see why Trump-haters might like this guy because he says that the Trump-initiated war effort is doomed.
“Iran is more powerful now than before the war — it controls the price of world oil and more likely to fracture the US coalition than US is to grow it. Stunning gains in 17 days”
Ahh, I love this, I really do!
Are the so-called “experts” now admitting that Iran was too weak and stupid all these years to influence oil prices through control of the Strait, and that it needed the “help” of Israel and the U.S. to suddenly become “powerful”? Shouldn’t those so-called “experts” suggest which nation should be next to get “help” from Israel and U.S.?
Phil, that 2nd X link was from Professor Robert Pape (perhaps Schryver quote-posted it).
Professor Pape was interviewed on (conservative UK website) Unherd yesterday.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQuApsJK0gM
It’s a 34 minute segment, expanding on his recent X posts, including that one you linked. (The interviewer pushes back on some of the points and claims he makes.)
Callum: sorry about that confusion. I guess Will Schryver reposted the Prof. Pape tweet. Still, he wasn’t posting it with a comment of the form “look how wrong this professor is”!
Look at some of the Unherd interview with Pape. Pape seems to think that Vietnam is the best analogy and that whoever is running Iran and hasn’t been killed is using Ho Chi Minh’s outlast the enemy strategy. I don’t think the analogy holds. Iran is an urbanized country with no tree cover. If the U.S. takes out oil production and electric power, I don’t see how the Iranians will be able to anything military. The Iranians can’t just sit in their rice paddies and wait for the U.S. to be exhausted, as the North Vietnamese did. The precision of current U.S. weapons combined with the disloyalty of some fraction of the Iranian population also makes it much tougher for the Iranian regime to survive. A political opponent of Ho couldn’t call in his current GPS coordinates and then watch as he evaporated.